The content posted by an Ignored user is still visible when quoted by another user
Users have been asked (or told) to Ignore other users by the moderators
While the first point is a technical issue which will require work from the developers to solve, I feel the second point deserves some discussion. It was mentioned in that thread that this one needed its own, so I have broken it out to here.
To me, the ignore feature needs to be available as a tool for users to protect themselves from abuse. I can also see advising someone to protect themselves temporarily while an investigation takes place on how to solve the issue in the longer term. However, this advice should only ever be temporary, and it should always be up to the user whether they wish to Ignore another.
If a user is asked to permanently ignore another to protect them from the other user's posts, I feel there has been a massive breakdown somewhere. Nobody should be posting anything on a forum like this which makes someone feel they need to ignore them, and it feels completely dismissive to tell them to "just Ignore them".
On the other hand, I have also heard of times when users have been ordered to Ignore others to "keep the peace". That is, when a user is seen to be continually at odds with another, they can be told to permanently Ignore others so that heated discussions don't take place. I don't feel this is a productive use: At best, it may save the moderators some time (which I can appreciate, having moderated other channels voluntarily in the past). However, against this it stifles the open and honest debate we see in these channels, and can make a confusing mess of threads where people do not answer each other because they are ignoring each other.
In general, I would suggest that neither of these 2 situations are right for the Ignore feature. If one user has a problem with another, whether that is causing them distress or is causing them to discuss things in a heated manner, telling them to ignore the other is not going to solve any problems. If either one is causing enough trouble to warrant further action, I think there are better tools available to deal with it. Suggesting or forcing long-term Ignores is just sticking your fingers in your ears, smiling, and telling everyone that there never was a problem in the first place. I don't feel this is the way.
What does everyone else think? I'd be interested in hearing about this from moderators, too.
The Ignore feature is only useful in very specific cases - you'd need to dislike another user's post so much that you're willing to cut out parts of a general conversation in order not to have to see them, and those posts need to be not generally disliked enough that the moderators don't need or want to take action. I don't see that kind of circumstances arise for me, honestly, and I don't think I'm the exception in this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Copying and Pasting my response in the previous thread:
"The "Ignore" solution creates threads that make no sense as there is usually two or more conversations going on then....it is not in any way conducive to good discussion.
Also the people who you "Ignore" can still respond to your comments but you cannot see this....to me that creates issues with apparent discussion as well. Some may see the silence as silent agreement to the statements they make to your comment....worse yet if someone replies to that person you see the post anyway completely nullifying the whole process.
Its a really silly solution overall and should not be a default strategy of any kind."
That's not really the thrust of Urth's argument. Some users have been instructed by the moderation team to add other users to their Ignore list. I won't speculate on why as even simply saying "this has happened" is problematic, but it's germane to the discussion. Urth's point was more that the Ignore feature should not be used in lieu of moderation, as it damages the exchange of ideas on the board even beyond the people who have been officially ordered to use Ignore. Others can potentially find it hard to follow a discussion in which some people are invisible to others and thus disjointing the conversation, nor can this be solved since the choice of whether or not to place people on Ignore has been stripped from some users.
EDIT: Optimus also makes an excellent point, as the Ignore function is not bilateral. Someone who adds a user to their Ignore list is not, in turn, invisible to that other user, and thus the 'Ignored' user is allowed to attack the first user's words without reprisal or repercussion. Ignore effectively leaves you defenseless against whoever it is you're Ignoring, and since everybody else can see those attacks...well. It's far from ideal.
Unpopular opinion, but if you are put in a time out three times, the fourth should just be permanent. If you haven't learned your lesson by then, you aren't going to. Doing this would result in the Ignore feature being unnecessary in a lot of cases. Banning someone from the forms permanently won't deprive anyone of the content that they may have purchased, just from being able to harass others. As is, there is no consequences for being an ass to others.
Unpopular opinion, but if you are put in a time out three times, the fourth should just be permanent. If you haven't learned your lesson by then, you aren't going to. Doing this would result in the Ignore feature being unnecessary in a lot of cases. Banning someone from the forms permanently won't deprive anyone of the content that they may have purchased, just from being able to harass others. As is, there is no consequences for being an ass to others.
That's not really the thrust of Urth's argument. Some users have been instructed by the moderation team to add other users to their Ignore list. I won't speculate on why as even simply saying "this has happened" is problematic, but it's germane to the discussion. Urth's point was more that the Ignore feature should not be used in lieu of moderation, as it damages the exchange of ideas on the board even beyond the people who have been officially ordered to use Ignore. Others can potentially find it hard to follow a discussion in which some people are invisible to others and thus disjointing the conversation, nor can this be solved since the choice of whether or not to place people on Ignore has been stripped from some users.
EDIT: Optimus also makes an excellent point, as the Ignore function is not bilateral. Someone who adds a user to their Ignore list is not, in turn, invisible to that other user, and thus the 'Ignored' user is allowed to attack the first user's words without reprisal or repercussion. Ignore effectively leaves you defenseless against whoever it is you're Ignoring, and since everybody else can see those attacks...well. It's far from ideal.
Not being ideal aside for a sec, the only reason I can think of for a moderator to tell a user to put another user on their Ignore list is that they reviewed the case, concluded it didn't warrant further action on their part (so effectively they moderated in the way they felt appropriate, possibly including redacting posts and/or banning a user), and said that if this wasn't sufficient for the user who felt slighted then they could use this function. I've never been given this advice, I don't know of anyone who has been, so that's all I can think of.
Now taking the not being ideal bit into account, well, then don't use it. I agree it's a bad tool. I agree there are downsides. So if the upside - not seeing that user's posts - doesn't outweigh those downsides, don't use it. Again, I imagine that means very few users should actually (want to) use the Ignore list, but it's nothing more than an option. The mods can't make you use it, they can only suggest you may want to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Unpopular opinion, but if you are put in a time out three times, the fourth should just be permanent. If you haven't learned your lesson by then, you aren't going to. Doing this would result in the Ignore feature being unnecessary in a lot of cases. Banning someone from the forms permanently won't deprive anyone of the content that they may have purchased, just from being able to harass others. As is, there is no consequences for being an ass to others.
why do you bring this Up?
Because moderation of the boards has a direct impact on the how useful the ignore feature is.
When the moderation team has advised users to 'ignore' others, this doesn't necessarily mean using the 'Ignore' forum feature. We often are suggesting that an individual simply ceases to interact with specific users that cause them continued distress, as there has been a proven pattern of rule violation during these interactions. This is not a means of resolving or dismissing a problem, but an attempt to help the user keep their account in good standing and possibly avoid further unneeded contention.
Not being ideal aside for a sec, the only reason I can think of for a moderator to tell a user to put another user on their Ignore list is that they reviewed the case, concluded it didn't warrant further action on their part (so effectively they moderated in the way they felt appropriate, possibly including redacting posts and/or banning a user), and said that if this wasn't sufficient for the user who felt slighted then they could use this function.
+1 to Pangurjan. This is a very real occurrence, as the moderation team promotes the alignment of posts with the Site Rules & Guidelines only. An unliked user, opinion, or post does not constitute a violation of these. There are millions of users visiting D&D Beyond and with them come millions of different opinions, values, and beliefs. It is all of our responsibility to ensure that we maintain a civil, respectful environment where each of these opinions can be shared - whether they are agreed with or not.
A function that hides quotes of a ignored user might already help a lot, I think.
While I have no one ignored on here, I do have 2 users ignored on another forum and am really glad that the block funktion there also hides their quoted posts. I still see the replies and most of the times that's enough for me to still follow the conversation.
I think if user A ignores user B, that should also hide everything that user A posts from user B, not just the one way, but both ways.
Perhaps a notification on a thread that it contains posts from users that you have ignored or that have ignored you, such that you're prepared for those non-sensical posts that inevitably arise from having ignore user functionality on forums.
Yeah the fact that if they quote you then somebody quotes them you can see what they are saying makes the feature pretty useless for the most part. And if someone is directly quoting you and the rest of the conversation starts to revolve around that reply then how can you productively continue to discuss anything in that thread?
Is it fair that you have to just not participate in a thread anymore if someone you are "Ignoring" is taking part? Seems like you are giving all the power to one side in that case and not really solving the underlying issue.
Seems like you are giving all the power to one side in that case and not really solving the underlying issue.
Not all issues can be resolved (or, arguably, should be resolved) by intervention of a third party or a tool. Among the few times I've seen someone announce they'd put someone on the Ignore list several were - in my opinion - unwarranted. Or, less charitably said, to me it didn't feel like there was enough of an underlying issue. But again, I don't really see any circumstances for myself where I'd think moderation failed me and my only recourse would be putting someone on Ignore yet others might - and I can understand that. the Ignore list is there, I can only assume, for interpersonal (emotional) stuff. That's not something easily handled by moderation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Seems like you are giving all the power to one side in that case and not really solving the underlying issue.
Not all issues can be resolved (or, arguably, should be resolved) by intervention of a third party or a tool. Among the few times I've seen someone announce they'd put someone on the Ignore list several were - in my opinion - unwarranted. Or, less charitably said, to me it didn't feel like there was enough of an underlying issue. But again, I don't really see any circumstances for myself where I'd think moderation failed me and my only recourse would be putting someone on Ignore yet others might - and I can understand that. the Ignore list is there, I can only assume, for interpersonal (emotional) stuff. That's not something easily handled by moderation.
Seems like you are giving all the power to one side in that case and not really solving the underlying issue.
Not all issues can be resolved (or, arguably, should be resolved) by intervention of a third party or a tool. Among the few times I've seen someone announce they'd put someone on the Ignore list several were - in my opinion - unwarranted. Or, less charitably said, to me it didn't feel like there was enough of an underlying issue. But again, I don't really see any circumstances for myself where I'd think moderation failed me and my only recourse would be putting someone on Ignore yet others might - and I can understand that. the Ignore list is there, I can only assume, for interpersonal (emotional) stuff. That's not something easily handled by moderation.
Isn't that kinda the point of moderation?
The point of moderation is to making sure everybody abides by the rules. Beyond that, moderators can certainly try (and they do, as far as I can tell) to get everybody to play nice, but if two users are arguing without actually breaking those rules there's not a lot they can (or should) do other than asking them to be polite and, as the case may be, ignore each other if they really can't get along.
the Ignore list is there, I can only assume, for interpersonal (emotional) stuff. That's not something easily handled by moderation.
Obviously, this will vary site-to-site, but "interpersonal (emotional) stuff" will sometimes fall under "harassment," and if that is under the site rules, then moderation is supposed to deal with it. The site rules here barely mention harassment, but they do mention it.
I currently only have 2 people on my Ignore list, and neither of them are very active on these forums anymore. The first one I ignored due to them harassing me and due to some highly problematic things that they have posted (racist, sexist, and antivax), and the second one I ignored because they would not let a thread drop even though everyone that came in disagreed with their reading of the RAW, even though they agreed that the rule was dumb and that they would houserule it in their own game to be the way that they were reading the rule. I have probably Ignored about a dozen people on my time active on this site's forums, but most of them were temporary, and none of the time that I ignored someone did it do anything but temporarily make the issue go away.
Ignore is an imperfect temporary fix to a systematic problem on this site, which I addressed in this thread. In that thread, I shared my experience on ENworld's forums, mentioning Ignore specifically because of my much more favorable experience with both that site's Ignore feature and the way that Moderation approaches the feature and the moderation system in general.
Most of the times I have had to ignore someone it was because they were trying to get me riled up and succeeding in that goal, and I knew that unless I ignored them, I would end up breaking the site rules and temporarily getting myself banned from the site. I have had to use it because of how overly hostile, aggressive, and offensive users were being to the point that I didn't trust myself to handle the situation objectively and calmly, which was likely the goal of the people I ended up Ignoring. After ignoring someone for about a week to a month, I would take them off the ignore list and the cycle would repeat over and over again.
On ENworld, however, the people that were acting in ways that would eventually lead to this happening were stopped in their tracks before they were allowed to rile me and the other forum-goers up, and the Moderators clearly and quickly dealt with the situation before it devolved to the state that it so often does on this site. Moderators on ENworld deal with the problem posters instead of punishing the problem that was created by them like what often happens on this site. If a poster on ENworld is making personal attacks (even hidden ones), they specifically and openly will be given a warning about their behavior treading the Site Rule's guidelines. If they proceed to break the site rules, they will be booted from a thread and often handed a Warning Point to mark them on a list of the forums' active "problem posters". This stops people from having to use the Ignore feature, and furthermore, the only person I have ever had to Ignore on ENworld's forums was permanently banned from that site just a week after me Ignoring them.
In my experienced opinion, it all boils down to the differences in moderation styles that the two sites have. One is quicker, more effective, and is much less prone to punishing the people who aren't actually the problem (mostly due to them having decades of experience on moderating on that site and knowing from experience what works and what doesn't), while the other seems to indiscriminately punish anyone that posts something that leans on breaking the site rules, no matter the motivation or context.
I do want to make it clear (again) that I'm not attacking the Moderators or trying to undo anything that has been done in the past, but change the direction going forward. In my opinion, the Ignore feature should be there to keep people safe from harassers, cyberbullies, and stalkers, not be used as a substitute for Moderating. If a person is a problem, you should deal with the problem. If a ton of people ignore one user, that user is probably a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Smart people learn from their mistake, but it takes someone even smarter to learn from the mistakes of others. Their are issues with the Ignore feature on this site (as pointed out in this thread and elsewhere), and they aren't being dealt with (or, at least, we haven't seen any changes or announcements of upcoming changes since I made my thread over two weeks ago). Transparency is a huge issue with this site's moderation team, and this includes how people are encouraged to use the Ignore feature.
Ignore should not be an alternative to moderation or to make the job of the moderators easier, it should be a safety tool to prevent harm to the users of the site. Ignore should not be recommended or incentivized unless there is an extreme case where it absolutely needs to be used.
the Ignore list is there, I can only assume, for interpersonal (emotional) stuff. That's not something easily handled by moderation.
Obviously, this will vary site-to-site, but "interpersonal (emotional) stuff" will sometimes fall under "harassment," and if that is under the site rules, then moderation is supposed to deal with it. The site rules here barely mention harassment, but they do mention it.
And in those cases moderation will, presumably, deal with it. Not all interpersonal stuff qualifies as harrassment, however, and it's not always an easy line to draw either.
The larger point I'm trying to make is that the Ignore function isn't meant to replace moderation and to the best of my entirely second-hand knowledge isn't (ab)used as such by the moderators either. It's a tool that's meant for users when moderation has run its course and unfortunately failed to satisfy those users. I'm not going to claim this intention works perfectly in practice - the mods are humans, and it's human to err. They seem to try their best though (as a few warnings of my own can attest).
Seems like you are giving all the power to one side in that case and not really solving the underlying issue.
Not all issues can be resolved (or, arguably, should be resolved) by intervention of a third party or a tool. Among the few times I've seen someone announce they'd put someone on the Ignore list several were - in my opinion - unwarranted. Or, less charitably said, to me it didn't feel like there was enough of an underlying issue. But again, I don't really see any circumstances for myself where I'd think moderation failed me and my only recourse would be putting someone on Ignore yet others might - and I can understand that. the Ignore list is there, I can only assume, for interpersonal (emotional) stuff. That's not something easily handled by moderation.
Isn't that kinda the point of moderation?
The point of moderation is to making sure everybody abides by the rules. Beyond that, moderators can certainly try (and they do, as far as I can tell) to get everybody to play nice, but if two users are arguing without actually breaking those rules there's not a lot they can (or should) do other than asking them to be polite and, as the case may be, ignore each other if they really can't get along.
I guess...ignoring does not really solve much in the long run is the main issue. I think what others and myself would like to see is if a person isn't breaking the rules per say but is not really contributing to the discussion in a positive way. Yes I know this is subjective but thats why you have human moderators and not bots...so they can see when something/someone isn't contributing to the discussion in good faith and removes them from the thread. Ideally it would work that you just remove people from a thread and not the entire site...just to allow conversation to continue to happen but with more productive dialogue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In the recent thread My Experiences on Two Separate D&D Site Forums, one feature which has some issues on this forum is the Ignore feature. Two specific issues were raised:
While the first point is a technical issue which will require work from the developers to solve, I feel the second point deserves some discussion. It was mentioned in that thread that this one needed its own, so I have broken it out to here.
To me, the ignore feature needs to be available as a tool for users to protect themselves from abuse. I can also see advising someone to protect themselves temporarily while an investigation takes place on how to solve the issue in the longer term. However, this advice should only ever be temporary, and it should always be up to the user whether they wish to Ignore another.
If a user is asked to permanently ignore another to protect them from the other user's posts, I feel there has been a massive breakdown somewhere. Nobody should be posting anything on a forum like this which makes someone feel they need to ignore them, and it feels completely dismissive to tell them to "just Ignore them".
On the other hand, I have also heard of times when users have been ordered to Ignore others to "keep the peace". That is, when a user is seen to be continually at odds with another, they can be told to permanently Ignore others so that heated discussions don't take place. I don't feel this is a productive use: At best, it may save the moderators some time (which I can appreciate, having moderated other channels voluntarily in the past). However, against this it stifles the open and honest debate we see in these channels, and can make a confusing mess of threads where people do not answer each other because they are ignoring each other.
In general, I would suggest that neither of these 2 situations are right for the Ignore feature. If one user has a problem with another, whether that is causing them distress or is causing them to discuss things in a heated manner, telling them to ignore the other is not going to solve any problems. If either one is causing enough trouble to warrant further action, I think there are better tools available to deal with it. Suggesting or forcing long-term Ignores is just sticking your fingers in your ears, smiling, and telling everyone that there never was a problem in the first place. I don't feel this is the way.
What does everyone else think? I'd be interested in hearing about this from moderators, too.
Thanks in advance.
The Ignore feature is only useful in very specific cases - you'd need to dislike another user's post so much that you're willing to cut out parts of a general conversation in order not to have to see them, and those posts need to be not generally disliked enough that the moderators don't need or want to take action. I don't see that kind of circumstances arise for me, honestly, and I don't think I'm the exception in this.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Copying and Pasting my response in the previous thread:
"The "Ignore" solution creates threads that make no sense as there is usually two or more conversations going on then....it is not in any way conducive to good discussion.
Also the people who you "Ignore" can still respond to your comments but you cannot see this....to me that creates issues with apparent discussion as well. Some may see the silence as silent agreement to the statements they make to your comment....worse yet if someone replies to that person you see the post anyway completely nullifying the whole process.
Its a really silly solution overall and should not be a default strategy of any kind."
That's not really the thrust of Urth's argument. Some users have been instructed by the moderation team to add other users to their Ignore list. I won't speculate on why as even simply saying "this has happened" is problematic, but it's germane to the discussion. Urth's point was more that the Ignore feature should not be used in lieu of moderation, as it damages the exchange of ideas on the board even beyond the people who have been officially ordered to use Ignore. Others can potentially find it hard to follow a discussion in which some people are invisible to others and thus disjointing the conversation, nor can this be solved since the choice of whether or not to place people on Ignore has been stripped from some users.
EDIT: Optimus also makes an excellent point, as the Ignore function is not bilateral. Someone who adds a user to their Ignore list is not, in turn, invisible to that other user, and thus the 'Ignored' user is allowed to attack the first user's words without reprisal or repercussion. Ignore effectively leaves you defenseless against whoever it is you're Ignoring, and since everybody else can see those attacks...well. It's far from ideal.
Please do not contact or message me.
Unpopular opinion, but if you are put in a time out three times, the fourth should just be permanent. If you haven't learned your lesson by then, you aren't going to. Doing this would result in the Ignore feature being unnecessary in a lot of cases. Banning someone from the forms permanently won't deprive anyone of the content that they may have purchased, just from being able to harass others. As is, there is no consequences for being an ass to others.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
why do you bring this Up?
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
Not being ideal aside for a sec, the only reason I can think of for a moderator to tell a user to put another user on their Ignore list is that they reviewed the case, concluded it didn't warrant further action on their part (so effectively they moderated in the way they felt appropriate, possibly including redacting posts and/or banning a user), and said that if this wasn't sufficient for the user who felt slighted then they could use this function. I've never been given this advice, I don't know of anyone who has been, so that's all I can think of.
Now taking the not being ideal bit into account, well, then don't use it. I agree it's a bad tool. I agree there are downsides. So if the upside - not seeing that user's posts - doesn't outweigh those downsides, don't use it. Again, I imagine that means very few users should actually (want to) use the Ignore list, but it's nothing more than an option. The mods can't make you use it, they can only suggest you may want to.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Because moderation of the boards has a direct impact on the how useful the ignore feature is.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Some personal perspective only -
When the moderation team has advised users to 'ignore' others, this doesn't necessarily mean using the 'Ignore' forum feature. We often are suggesting that an individual simply ceases to interact with specific users that cause them continued distress, as there has been a proven pattern of rule violation during these interactions. This is not a means of resolving or dismissing a problem, but an attempt to help the user keep their account in good standing and possibly avoid further unneeded contention.
+1 to Pangurjan. This is a very real occurrence, as the moderation team promotes the alignment of posts with the Site Rules & Guidelines only. An unliked user, opinion, or post does not constitute a violation of these. There are millions of users visiting D&D Beyond and with them come millions of different opinions, values, and beliefs. It is all of our responsibility to ensure that we maintain a civil, respectful environment where each of these opinions can be shared - whether they are agreed with or not.
A function that hides quotes of a ignored user might already help a lot, I think.
While I have no one ignored on here, I do have 2 users ignored on another forum and am really glad that the block funktion there also hides their quoted posts. I still see the replies and most of the times that's enough for me to still follow the conversation.
I think if user A ignores user B, that should also hide everything that user A posts from user B, not just the one way, but both ways.
Perhaps a notification on a thread that it contains posts from users that you have ignored or that have ignored you, such that you're prepared for those non-sensical posts that inevitably arise from having ignore user functionality on forums.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Yeah the fact that if they quote you then somebody quotes them you can see what they are saying makes the feature pretty useless for the most part. And if someone is directly quoting you and the rest of the conversation starts to revolve around that reply then how can you productively continue to discuss anything in that thread?
Is it fair that you have to just not participate in a thread anymore if someone you are "Ignoring" is taking part? Seems like you are giving all the power to one side in that case and not really solving the underlying issue.
To add something I forgot in my earlier post:
The block function on the other forum reads has 5 options for the person you're blocking:
I have the first 4 checked on the ones I have blocked and it works well.
Not all issues can be resolved (or, arguably, should be resolved) by intervention of a third party or a tool. Among the few times I've seen someone announce they'd put someone on the Ignore list several were - in my opinion - unwarranted. Or, less charitably said, to me it didn't feel like there was enough of an underlying issue. But again, I don't really see any circumstances for myself where I'd think moderation failed me and my only recourse would be putting someone on Ignore yet others might - and I can understand that. the Ignore list is there, I can only assume, for interpersonal (emotional) stuff. That's not something easily handled by moderation.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Isn't that kinda the point of moderation?
The point of moderation is to making sure everybody abides by the rules. Beyond that, moderators can certainly try (and they do, as far as I can tell) to get everybody to play nice, but if two users are arguing without actually breaking those rules there's not a lot they can (or should) do other than asking them to be polite and, as the case may be, ignore each other if they really can't get along.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Obviously, this will vary site-to-site, but "interpersonal (emotional) stuff" will sometimes fall under "harassment," and if that is under the site rules, then moderation is supposed to deal with it. The site rules here barely mention harassment, but they do mention it.
I currently only have 2 people on my Ignore list, and neither of them are very active on these forums anymore. The first one I ignored due to them harassing me and due to some highly problematic things that they have posted (racist, sexist, and antivax), and the second one I ignored because they would not let a thread drop even though everyone that came in disagreed with their reading of the RAW, even though they agreed that the rule was dumb and that they would houserule it in their own game to be the way that they were reading the rule. I have probably Ignored about a dozen people on my time active on this site's forums, but most of them were temporary, and none of the time that I ignored someone did it do anything but temporarily make the issue go away.
Ignore is an imperfect temporary fix to a systematic problem on this site, which I addressed in this thread. In that thread, I shared my experience on ENworld's forums, mentioning Ignore specifically because of my much more favorable experience with both that site's Ignore feature and the way that Moderation approaches the feature and the moderation system in general.
Most of the times I have had to ignore someone it was because they were trying to get me riled up and succeeding in that goal, and I knew that unless I ignored them, I would end up breaking the site rules and temporarily getting myself banned from the site. I have had to use it because of how overly hostile, aggressive, and offensive users were being to the point that I didn't trust myself to handle the situation objectively and calmly, which was likely the goal of the people I ended up Ignoring. After ignoring someone for about a week to a month, I would take them off the ignore list and the cycle would repeat over and over again.
On ENworld, however, the people that were acting in ways that would eventually lead to this happening were stopped in their tracks before they were allowed to rile me and the other forum-goers up, and the Moderators clearly and quickly dealt with the situation before it devolved to the state that it so often does on this site. Moderators on ENworld deal with the problem posters instead of punishing the problem that was created by them like what often happens on this site. If a poster on ENworld is making personal attacks (even hidden ones), they specifically and openly will be given a warning about their behavior treading the Site Rule's guidelines. If they proceed to break the site rules, they will be booted from a thread and often handed a Warning Point to mark them on a list of the forums' active "problem posters". This stops people from having to use the Ignore feature, and furthermore, the only person I have ever had to Ignore on ENworld's forums was permanently banned from that site just a week after me Ignoring them.
In my experienced opinion, it all boils down to the differences in moderation styles that the two sites have. One is quicker, more effective, and is much less prone to punishing the people who aren't actually the problem (mostly due to them having decades of experience on moderating on that site and knowing from experience what works and what doesn't), while the other seems to indiscriminately punish anyone that posts something that leans on breaking the site rules, no matter the motivation or context.
I do want to make it clear (again) that I'm not attacking the Moderators or trying to undo anything that has been done in the past, but change the direction going forward. In my opinion, the Ignore feature should be there to keep people safe from harassers, cyberbullies, and stalkers, not be used as a substitute for Moderating. If a person is a problem, you should deal with the problem. If a ton of people ignore one user, that user is probably a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Smart people learn from their mistake, but it takes someone even smarter to learn from the mistakes of others. Their are issues with the Ignore feature on this site (as pointed out in this thread and elsewhere), and they aren't being dealt with (or, at least, we haven't seen any changes or announcements of upcoming changes since I made my thread over two weeks ago). Transparency is a huge issue with this site's moderation team, and this includes how people are encouraged to use the Ignore feature.
Ignore should not be an alternative to moderation or to make the job of the moderators easier, it should be a safety tool to prevent harm to the users of the site. Ignore should not be recommended or incentivized unless there is an extreme case where it absolutely needs to be used.
Just my two cents,
Third_Sundering
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And in those cases moderation will, presumably, deal with it. Not all interpersonal stuff qualifies as harrassment, however, and it's not always an easy line to draw either.
The larger point I'm trying to make is that the Ignore function isn't meant to replace moderation and to the best of my entirely second-hand knowledge isn't (ab)used as such by the moderators either. It's a tool that's meant for users when moderation has run its course and unfortunately failed to satisfy those users. I'm not going to claim this intention works perfectly in practice - the mods are humans, and it's human to err. They seem to try their best though (as a few warnings of my own can attest).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I guess...ignoring does not really solve much in the long run is the main issue. I think what others and myself would like to see is if a person isn't breaking the rules per say but is not really contributing to the discussion in a positive way. Yes I know this is subjective but thats why you have human moderators and not bots...so they can see when something/someone isn't contributing to the discussion in good faith and removes them from the thread. Ideally it would work that you just remove people from a thread and not the entire site...just to allow conversation to continue to happen but with more productive dialogue.